Chevron deference doctrine
Chevron Deference Doctrine
What is Chevron Deference?
The Chevron deference doctrine comes from the landmark case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984). It deals with how courts review interpretations of statutes made by federal administrative agencies.
In essence:
When a statute is ambiguous or silent on a particular issue,
And an agency is charged with administering that statute,
Courts will defer to the agency’s interpretation if it is reasonable, even if the court might have interpreted the statute differently.
This doctrine recognizes that agencies have expertise and policymaking authority in specialized areas, and courts should not substitute their judgment lightly.
The Two-Step Chevron Test
Chevron established a two-step framework for judicial review:
Step One: Has Congress directly spoken to the precise issue in the statute?
If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter.
The court and agency must follow Congressional intent.
Step Two: If the statute is ambiguous or silent, is the agency’s interpretation reasonable?
If yes, courts defer to the agency’s interpretation.
If no, the court must reject the agency’s view.
Important Cases Illustrating Chevron Deference
1. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984)
Facts: EPA’s interpretation of “stationary source” in the Clean Air Act allowed flexible regulation.
Issue: Did the EPA’s interpretation warrant deference?
Holding: The Court said the statute was ambiguous and EPA’s interpretation was reasonable.
Impact: Established Chevron deference, empowering agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes within reason.
2. United States v. Mead Corp. (2001)
Facts: The U.S. Customs Service issued a classification ruling letter that affected tariffs.
Issue: Does every agency interpretation merit Chevron deference?
Holding: No. The Court said Chevron applies only when Congress has delegated authority to the agency to make rules with the force of law (e.g., formal rulemaking or adjudication).
Impact: Introduced a distinction between Chevron deference and a lesser standard called Skidmore deference, which applies to less formal agency interpretations.
3. National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Services (2005)
Facts: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) classified cable broadband internet under a specific statutory provision.
Issue: Could the FCC change its prior interpretation without running afoul of the courts?
Holding: The Court upheld the agency’s new interpretation under Chevron, even if it conflicted with a prior judicial interpretation.
Impact: Reinforced Chevron’s power, confirming agencies can change interpretations if reasonable.
4. King v. Burwell (2015)
Facts: The issue was whether tax credits under the Affordable Care Act applied to federal exchanges (not just state exchanges).
Issue: Should courts defer to the IRS’s interpretation under Chevron?
Holding: The Supreme Court did not apply Chevron deference because the issue was of “deep economic and political significance.”
Impact: The Court created a “major questions” doctrine, limiting Chevron’s reach when an issue is exceptionally important.
5. Michigan v. EPA (2015)
Facts: EPA’s regulation requiring consideration of costs in regulating power plants.
Issue: Should the Court defer to EPA’s interpretation that it didn’t have to consider costs?
Holding: The Court held that EPA unreasonably refused to consider costs and rejected the agency’s interpretation.
Impact: Shows that Chevron deference is not unlimited and agencies must offer reasonable explanations.
6. Kisor v. Wilkie (2019)
Facts: Interpretation of VA regulations about veterans’ disability claims.
Issue: Should courts defer to agency interpretations of their own regulations (called Auer or Seminole Rock deference)?
Holding: The Court upheld deference but narrowed its application by requiring the agency’s interpretation to be reasonable, its expertise to be at play, and the regulation to be genuinely ambiguous.
Impact: Clarified the limits on deference to agency interpretations of their own rules, related to but distinct from Chevron.
7. Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association (2015)
Facts: The Department of Labor rescinded a prior rule without a formal notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Issue: Does Chevron require agencies to follow notice-and-comment procedures for rescinding rules?
Holding: The Court held that Chevron does not impose procedural requirements like notice-and-comment but does require reasoned decision-making.
Impact: Emphasized that Chevron focuses on deference to interpretations, not on imposing procedural hurdles.
Summary of Chevron’s Legal Impact
Chevron created a presumption of agency expertise in interpreting ambiguous statutes.
It recognizes that administrative agencies have policymaking authority, especially in technical or specialized areas.
The doctrine has limitations:
Only applies when Congress has delegated authority (Mead).
Does not apply to major policy questions of wide significance (King).
Agencies must provide reasonable explanations for their interpretations (Michigan).
Courts retain ultimate authority to reject unreasonable interpretations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments